The Sun. — London, England, 1836-03-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 30. The House sat this afternoon at a few minutes to five o'clock, when the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Shaftesbury took their seats as his Majesty's Commis sioners. The Commons were summoned, and having appeared at the Bar, the Royal Assent was given to the Annual Indemnity Bill, the Spanish Slave Trade Abolition Bill, Clifton Bridge (Extension of Time for Building) Bill, the Reading Gas Bill, the Middlesex Hospital Incorporation Bill, and several other private Bills. Earl BROWNL 0 W presented a petition from the guar dians of the poor of Bedford, praying for an extension of the time for levying the money for building workhouses, and also that the allowance of poor rates might be vested in the guardians of the poor in place of the magistrates. Messengers from the Commons brought up the Arbroath and Forfar Railway Bill, and the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Bill, which were read a first time. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Bristol, praying the House under no circumstances to pass any measure a bolishing their Bishopric; also one from the Corporation of Dublin praying that the Irish Municipal Bill might not be passed into a law, as it would rob them of their rights. Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition signed by 30,000 inhabitants of Glasgow, stating that the apprenticeship system instituted on the abolition of slavery in the West Indies had totally failed, and had greatly deteriorated the slaves. 'They prayed that it night be immediately abolished. The Duke of L EIN STE R presented a petition from Ash ton in favour of Mr. Buckingham's Claims. The Earl of WESTMORELAND presented a petition from Brough, against:the probate clauses of the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill. So many petitions had been presented on -this subject, that it was evident the country was against it; he, therefore, hoped that part of the measure would be with irawn. CORN LAWS. Lord HATHERT6lsPresenied a petition from the Bo rough of Plymouth, complaining of the injustice of the Corr. Laws, and praying for the abolition. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from Mansfield against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from Thomas Collins, a prisoner in White Cross-street prison, praying that their Lordships would order his release.— ( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Noble and Learned Lord stated that if the prayer of the petition had been confined to that, he should not have troubled their Lordships with it ; but it also prayed for an amendment in the law relating to Im prisonment for Debt, and, therefore, he had thought it his duty to present it. BOROUGH OF STAFFORD. Lord HATHERTON moved that there be laid before the House an account of the number of freemen and householders in Stafford. The Noble Lord stated that he did this with a view to the discussion that was to take place on the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that the notes of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill be printed. DEPUTY RECORDER OF LEEDS. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the In habitants of Leeds praying the House to appoint a Deputy Recorder. LETTERS STEALING (BAIL) BILL(SCOTLAND.) The Duke of RICHMOND said, before this Bill wig rend a third time, he wished to know whether this Bill prohibited bail from being taken in the case of individuals who might be accused of stealing letters. A Bill had been passed last year, by which any person accused of stealing letters in England might be bailed, and he did not see why there should be any distinction between the two countries. He had only risen to call the attention of his Noble Friends to it, in order that they might see whether it was absolutely necessary that a difference should be made in the law of the two countries. The LORD CHANCELLOR believed the present Bill only prescribed a certain mode in which bail was to be taken, -and he had understood that if that precaution had not been taken, the ordinary course of taking bail in Scotland will be ineffectual to secure the attendance of the party accused. The Earl of H A DDINGTON did not see any reason why the further consideration of the Bill should not be deferred till after the recess. The Earl of ROSEBERY had been a member of the Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill ; and he be lewd it had been agreed that a Bill of this nature would be highly practicable; therefore, perhaps the better way would b;.! to po,tpone it for a short period, in order to sec whether it was limited to the obleet stated by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. RAILROADS. The Duke of LE IN STER moved for a Committee of En quiry on the subject of Railroads. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his appro bation of the motiin of the Noble Duke. and suggested, in order that the duties of the Committee might be ceore clearly d&ined, that the words " to enquire into the existing facilities of intercourse between the United Kingdoei and our Colonies of America." Lord ROSLYN suggested that the words " and means" be inserted after the word " facilities." The iiTTAICSD OWN E assented to the propo sition, and begged to state that his Noble Friend at the bead of the Admiralty had instituted an inquiry as to the best ports on the Western Coast of Ireland for Rail way communications ROMAN CATHOLIC HOUSES OF WORSHIP. The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose, in pursuance of a no tice, to move for a ram of the number of Catholic Chapels. It had been stated that Popery was greatly on the increase in this country, and if such was the fact, and that any danger was to he apprehended, it was right that the House should he in possession of the information. He bad read a para graph in a newspaper called the Newcastle Journal which if correct would certainly tend to confirm the truth of -what he had stated, viz., that forty years a:o there -were but thirty Roman Catholic chapels in Great Britain ; in I 535, there were 510, eleven of which were erected in that year. In addition to this there were eight Popish colleges, 52 semi naries, and a great many monasteries and convents. The paragraph also stated that the great majority of the Reporters for the Public Journals were Irish Papists. The Noble Duke concluded by moving for a return of the number of Roman Catholic Chapels in Great Britain, with the dates of their erection—of the number of monastic establish ments, whether for males or females, with the number of persons in each of the Catholic colleges, and other places of education, distinguishing those which were of the Jesuit order—of the number of Roman Catholics in Great Britain in the year 1799, and their progressive increase down to the present period. _ _ Viseount tit MELBOURNE had no objection to some of the returns moved for by the Noble Duke, as he did not see that any harm could arise from them; but he wished to state with respect to many points on the motion, that it would, he feared, he impossible to be complied with. Government could make the return so far as the number of places of Catholic worship, and the dates of the licenses granted to them—( Hear, hear, hear)—as to other Dissenter , . With respect to the second, the Noble Lord knew that there was a provision in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, requiring a registry of all males entering monastic institutions ; and if any members were since admitted, there was a severe penalty for not complying with the Act, and the party would be guilty of a misdemeanor. But he believed that did not extend to nunneries. As to Catholic Colleges, he could not see how men could be prevented from establishing schools for the education of persons professing that religion, and he did not know how there could be a return of these more than of the Dissenters, and of the Established Church. With respect to the number of Catholics in Great Britain in 1799, there were no means for ascertaining them. The Duke of NEWCASTLE conceived that there would be a possibility of complying with the motion made by him. In every direction Popery was spreading. He had received a letter from a gentleman, who ,had not subscribed his name to the letter ( A laugh)—stating that at St. Leonard's and Hastings there was a large establishment of Roman Catholics ; and at Stoney burst it was well known that there was a Jesuits' establishment. He saw the bull by which it was established, and it was described as that of the Jesuits' order. He hoped the returns would be granted. Lord HOLLAND thought that they had no power to en quire into any man's religion. The means of carrying the object into effect would be nothing more or less than giving to the Protestant Clergy of Great Britain the Popish power of examination and confession.—( Hear, hear.) Thefirst doctrine of the Protestant religion was that no man had a right to say or to judge what were the religious opinions of another.--. ( Hear, hear.) Lord HADDINGTON recommended the Noble Duke to add to his motion the words " where information could be officially obtained." The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had no objection to the returns as a matter of curiosity ; but the Noble Duke had, in his opinion, stated no Parliamentary grounds for the making of the returns called for. After a few words from the Duke of NEWCASTLE, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped the Honse would not impose so invidious a task on the Clergy of the Church of England as that sought to be imposed upon them by the Noble Duke; because, if the motion of the Noble Duke was acceded to, the whole of the Protestant Clergy would be set to work to institute an inquisition into who were Papists or Antinomians. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE believed the Jesuits were 'suppressed by the Pope before the Noble Duke took them in and. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that if the House did not agree to his motion, he should advertise in the newspa pers for all persons to send him such information as they could relative to monastic institutions. The Earl'of WINCHIL SEA said the Noble Duke had a right to the returns to see how far the protection given by the Catholic Relief Bill had been enforced.--( Hear, hear.) The return of the number of licensed places of worship was then agreed to, the words " so far as the same may be ascer tained" having been introduced on the suggestion of Viscount Melbourne, and the other returns were negatived. U e motion of the Duke of RICHMOND the stand e on the Library of the House of Lords was hoetyr s then adjourned to Tuesday , April 30. 12. OFG -s" ----MMONS, M A E ENook the chair at three o'clock. S \ . 4JI.INDAY OBSERVANCE. 11 ; gy presented a petition from the boatmen and `4. ing on the river Severn ; and on th e Birmin" g. set';. ~... ~~ hitm ana Gloucester Canal, praying for some law of protection against working on Sundays. Colonel ANSON presented a petition from the Mayor and Council of Great Yarmouth in favour of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill; also several petitions from different parishes in Stoke-upon-Trent in favour of the repeal of the tax upon Newspapers. DUBLIN ELECTION. On the motion of Mr. MAXWELL, the Chairman, the louse gave permission for the Committee on this election to it till four• o'clock. I I " Sir W. BP AB A ZON presented a petition from Kilmain, ounty of Mayo, expressive of gratitude to the present Mi isters for the liberal measures adopted towards Ireland, and praying for total abolition of tithes. This petition con tained charges against the Protestant clergyman of the parish, for causing to be ejected a 'poor family, consisting of nine children, and for having sent them to the National School. It preferred also charges agaar.st the Archbishop of Tuam for ,having used his in:hence to prevent their obtaining the site of a Cathonc cbapel. He thought it his duty to present this pe',ition, and hoped the charges might be dis proved. He - regretted that the Hon. Member for the Univer sity of Dublio, to whom he intimated his intention of present ing this petition, was not in his place, as he understood some - communication had been made on the subject. Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the prayer of the petition. NEWSPAPER TAXES. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE presented a petition from the Royal. Burgh of Inverness, praying for the total repeal of the Duties on Newspapers ; also a petition from Worces ter., praying for an enquiry into the burthens which press 'on the coasting trade in Scotland, and that there should be no arrangement with respect to the Light House till the private rights of individuals would be adjusted ; also a petition from a parish in the county of Clackmannan, signed by 130 indivi duals, for the better observance of the Sabbath, and that a measure similar to that introduced by the Hon. Member for Wigton during the last session of Parliament, should be passed into a law ; also another petition on the subject of the fisheries on the west coast of Scotland, and praying that the Bill introduced by the Noble Lord (the Member for North Lancashire), might not be allowed to pass into a law. He moved that the two last petitions should be referred to the Committees now sitting on the matters to which they related. CHURCH OF IRELAND. . . Mr. MARK PHILIPS rose to present a petition which he had for some time in his possession, agreed to at a very large and respectable meeting held in Manchester on the subject of the Irish Church. The Dissenters of thit town were among the petitioners, as were all who are interested in the prosperity and welfare of Ireland, and anxious for the removal of the grievances which press upon the Dissenters from the Established Church. He hoped for the indulgence of the House while he asked leave to read the prayer of the petition, and to put Hon. Gentlemen in possession of the views of the petitioners rather than state his own, which on some points might not be in exact coincidence with the opinions of those whose prayer be laid before the House. The petitioners stated, in the first instance, their regret at the measures hitherto introduced and adopted on the subject of the Established Church, and to en force its acceptance by the Irish people ; they believed that any connection between Church and State was injurious to the interests of the Christian religion, and they desired the aboli tion of the abuses allowed to exist in the Church of Ireland. The petitioners complained that the property of the State should be appropriated to the support of the religion of a very small section of the people, and they therefore prayed that, after the due maintenance of the Irish clergy, the surplus should be applied to national purposes. They stated that the Dissenters of the United Kingdom had waived their claims to a redress of grievances till the present Session, in the hope that they would be dealt with in a more complete manner than hitherto. They also prayed that the grant to the Dissenters in Ireland, called the Regium Donum, might be withdrawn, and that the revenues of the Irish Church should be resumed by the State. They prayed that the Bill for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages might pass this Session. They further prayed that the Ecclesiastical Courts might be abolished. The petition %% as signed by 32,000 individuals, Dissenters and other inhabitants of Manchester. It was his duty to state to the House what their views and feelings were. He must say that he did not cordially assent to some portions of the petition ; but the portion to which he cordially gave his support, was that portion which prayed for the redress of the grievances of the Dissenters during the present Session of Parliament.—( Hear.) He most cordially gave his support to that part of it which prayed for the civil registra tion of births, marriages, and deaths, and also to that portion which prayed for the abolition of one of the greatest nuisances —he meant the present system of the Ecclesiastical Courts. With respect to the Reyiurn Donum, he could not enter into the question. He was only speaking the sentiments of the petitioners, who objected to the grant. With these views he moved that the petition lie on the table. Mr. A. TREVOR should not feel that he was discharging his duty, if he did not enter in the strongest terms his solemn protest against the sentiments contained in this petition. He might fairly observe that it was something like travelling at the rate of twenty miles an hour. Since he bad had the honour of a scat in that House— The SPEAKER begged to interrupt the Hon. Member. Did the Hon. Member mean to object to the petition being laid on the table ? Mr. A. TREVOR was understood to cay he did not. The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Member whether it was proper to raise a discussion upon points contained in a petition which would all be discussed at the proper time. Mr. A. TREVOR felt called upon, from the very extraordi nary language contained in the petition, to enter his solemn protest against it ; but if the sense of the House was against it, he would riot press the objection to a division. Mr. WILK S would not, in consequence of what had fallen from the Speaker, enter upon a discussion; but he felt it his duty to state, that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Manchester was adopted at a most numerous and respect able meeting. Mr. POTTER was requested to support the prayer of the petition ; but he supposed he was precluded from making any observations, in consequence of the rule laid down by the Speaker. The SPEAKER was very glad the Hon. Member had put the question in that way, as it would enable him at once to give his opinion on the point. He (the Speaker) apprehended the way to support the prayer of a petition was to support the mea sures founded on that prayer when they were brought forward. Colonel SIBTHORP felt it his duty to enter his solemn protest against the prayer of the petition. An HON. MEMBER complained that the rule laid down by the Speaker was not enforced: The SPEAKER appealed to an Hon. Member, as old a member of that House as himself, whether it was not the practice when they were originally in Parliament, merely to read the petition without any observations. Mr. HA WES would not object to such an arrangement, if all were put on an equal footing. Now he bad a petition, and the prayer of it was " And your petitioners will ever pray," and in that case simply reading the prayer would not be suf ficient—some other explanation would be required. If, how ever, the rule were laid down none could complain. The SPEAKER hoped the House would give him credit when he assured it that he had not the slightest wish, nor no earthly motive in enforcing an inconvenient practice.— ( Hear, hear.) He admitted there was a class of pe titions upon which it was legitimate to entertain discussion. In the present case the petition contained matters of very grave importance, most of which would come under discus sion, and he had no wish but to save time. Mr. MARK PHILIPS hoped he bad not been out of order, in calling the attention of the House to the petition. MR. BUCKINGHAM'S CLAIMS. The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from the mer chants and traders of Manchester and Salford, in favour of Mr. Buckingham's claims. As representing the opinions of a great mercantile community, he hoped he would be al lowed to state the motives of the petitioners, who felt deeply indebted to Mr. Buckingham for his exertions in favour of Free Trade in the East, and they considered his case one of extreme hardship. MONOPOLY OF SALT. _ _ . Lord S AND ON presented a petition from the shipowners of Liverpool, praying that the monopoly of the East India Company in the article of Salt might be broken up. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Scottish Pres bytery of Liverpool, praying that their feelings might be re spected in the new law relating to marriage. They prayed that the presence of the Scotch minister might be con sidered sufficient, and that they might not be compelled to have the attendance of any other officer. The NOBLE LORD then presented a petition from the mer chants, bankers, and others of Montreal, praying that the House would not act upon the recommendation of the Committee which considered the subject of the Timber Duties. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. AGL lONBY presented a petition signed by 900 most respectable inhabitants of Kendal, praying for the total repeal of the tax upon Newspapers. The extension of civil rights had created a great thirst for information amongst all classes, and they prayed for the abolitiou of all taxes on knowledge. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from . the Licenced Victuallers of Cockermouth, complaing of the additional duty on spirit licences. Viscount CASTLE RE AG H presented a petition from a person named Wallock, of Newry, in the county of Down, complaining of certain proceedings that had been taken against him in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, for enter ing, as was alleged, spirits wrongly. Iu the present case, though notice of trial had been several times given on behalf of the Attorney-General, the record had been as often with drawn. Upon the trial of the last issue the jury recorded an acquittal. Th e Noble Lord cons id ere d th e case detailed in the petition an e x t reme l y hard one, and regretted t ha t n o Mem ber of his M a j esty ' s Government was presen t. Mr. HARVEY thought that a petition like the one just presented by the Nobl e Lord ou ght not to be consigned to the table of r the House without any comment or observation. Although he perfectly concurred in general with the rule laid down by th e Chair, yet still this was one of those very cases which ought to undergo discussion. The SPEAKER said he had particularly stated that cases of personal grievance did not come under the rule. hereD. W. the H in A di ß vi V du E a Y l h t a n d ou h g e h en t th pr e es c e as eti e te a d n e t x h t r r e e e me ti h m a e r s d , one M ; r. and, though ultimately acquitted, he still had to de fend himself and bear his own costs. He was glad to see that since the discussion had began a reinforcment had taken place on the Treasury Benches--(Mr. Fox Maule had taken his seat.) He thought the Government were called upon to protect this individual, for when the Crown was de feated, in his opinion it was an additional reason why a party should be protected from the payment of costs. Mr. F. MA ULE regretted that no person connected with the Irish Government was present to give an answer to the statements of the petition, and he was sure if his Right Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland was in his place he LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1856. would be prepared to justify the course pursued. He hardly thought it fair towards his Majesty's Ministers to complain of their absence at an hour wh it must be known that they were engaged on official busAgs--especially as the Noble Lord opposite had not thought proper to give them any intimation of his intention to present this petition.—(Hear.) Lord CA STLE RE AG H said, in answer to the complaint of no notice having been given, he would merely refer the Hon. Gentleman to the notices, where for some days it was stated to be his (Lord Castlereagh's) intention to present it. He was glad that the discussion went forward, as the petitioner by it obtained the support of the Member for Southwark ; and when he brought the matter again under consideration he hoped for his assistance and support. He hoped the Government would look into the petitioner's complaint, and be prepared to re- dress it. Mr. SHIEL asked whether the prosecution was instituted by the present or late Attorney- General for Ireland? Lord CASTLERE AGH could not answer the question. Sir S. WHALLEY said the date of the first notice was in 1834. _ - Mr. SHEIL—Then the prosecution must have been com- menced by Mr. Blackburne, a gentleman equally in favour with the former Whig Administration, and with the Tory Govern- ment which succeeded it. TITHES.—REGIUM DONUM. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the pa rish of Drumboe, in the county of Down. The petitioners, in the first place, prayed for the extinction of Tithes and the abolition of the Regium Donum. They remarked that the interests of religion had been injured by the exactions of forced provisions for the clergy of a church from whose tenets they dissented; and upon this part of the petition he (Mr. Crawford) would merely remark, that it was signed by persons who desired the taking away of the Regium Donum from their own Ministers, as well as the abolition of Tithes. The second prayer was in favour of a Bill for the amendment of the law of landlord and tenant, and that the landholder should be allowed compensation for substantial improvements under certain circumstances. Lord CASTLEREAGH read a letter from the Perpetual Curate of Drumboe, stating that the meeting at which the pe tition was agreed to was not a respectable one, and that none of the resident gentry of the parish were present. Mr. S. CRAWFORD had the honour of presenting the petition. He could not be answerable for the truth of the al legations contained in it ; but all he could say was—there was the petition, and there were the signatures. The petition was laid on the table. CORPORATION OF MARLBOROUGH. Mr. WARBURTON had two petitions to present; one signed by 100 householders of Marlborough, and the other by three individuals of the same place. The complaint of the i first was, that previous to the late election of the Corporation 1 of that town, the Marquis of Aylesbury canvassed the house- 1 holders for votes for members of the town council favourable to the Tory interest—that subsequent to the election, several of the householders who had not voted as the Noble Marquis desired, had received notice to quit ; and this not only from the _Marquis of Aylesbury ; but other tenants, who held under the Corporation, received notice to quit. Similar allegations were contained in a petition which had been pre sented to that House, and which had been referred to the Committee which was sitting upon Intimidation and Bribery; but as these allegations did not refer tointimidation, which was the subject of Parliamentary election, it was held by the Com mittee that they had not the power to inquire into allegations relating to elections for corporate offices. He had only re ceived the petitions that morning, and therefore he had not had time to give notice to the Members for Marl borough that he ha petitions to present on the subject— (Hear) —he would only state, therefore, that it was his intention to put on the notice-book a motion for an instruction to the Committee on Intimidation and Bribery concerning Parliamentary Elections, to inquire into these altogether. As he would make it the subject of a distinct motion, the gehtle men connected with the Corporation would in this way have a full opportunity to object to it if they should think proper. He had in his hand the actual notices that had been given. The first petition was signed by one hundred householders, and the other by three persons, who were tenants of the Corporation, and who had received similar notices to quit. Lord G. SOMERSET had hoped that the Hon. Member would have taken some other opportunity of making this state ment. What was the case? These petitions were presented on the last day of the sitting before the recess—the statements would go forth to the public as perfectly valid, and it was im possible for any party, either connected with the Marquis of Aylesbury, or with the Corporation, to make any defence. He knew nothing about the circumstances connected with this petition ; but he did not think in very fair that a party should be accused before the public in this mariner, when it was impos sible for him to make any defence. Mr. WARBURTON had already stated that a petition containing similar allegations had been presented to that House, and referred to the Intimidation Committee. If the subject bad been entirely new, he might have thought it better to have deferred presenting these petitions until he had given notice ; but as the petitions were of the same kind, he did not think it necessary to do so. He would not make any motion on the subject until after the recess. He wished now to give notice, that upon bringing up the Report upon the Commutation of Tithes for England and Wales, he would move that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the expediency of abolishing the payment of all tithcs.—( Hear.) 2dly, For compensating the receivers of tithes for the loss they should sustain by a charge upon the revenues of the country ; and, 3dly, for re pealing the Corn Laws, and establishing a free trade in corn—thus compensating the tithe payers for the additional charge that would be thrown upon them by removing the charges upon the importation, and re t lieving the landed interest for the loss they should sustain by the alteration in the Corn Laws by the abolition of tithes. TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. .. Mr. AR'T'HUR TREVOR gave notice that he would move a clause in the Tithe Commutation Bill, requiring that the Commissioners to be appointed under that Bill should be members of the Established Church. GENERAL REGISTRATION. Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from the Dis senters of some chapel in Londonderry, praying for a general system of registration of births and marriages. Sir SAMUEL WHAL LEY presented a petition from the Parish-Clerk of Marylebone, praying for compensation, in the event of the Bill before the House on this subject being passed into a law. The Hon. Member expressed his concur rence in the prayer of the petition. SPIRIT LICENSES. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from certain Li censed Victuallers, against the alteration in the spirit licenses. The petitioners stated that the value of a house was no crite rion of the quantity of spirits sold. The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from Greenwich praying for an investigation into Colonel Brad ley's case. Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Master of a Proprietary School praying, in the event of a charter being granted to the London University that his might be placed upon an equal footing: also, three petitions from Licenced Vic tuallers against the encreased duty op licences. Mr. MA RSLA ND presented a petition from Newcastle in favour of the claims of Dissenters ; also, one from the same place against the endowment of Churches in Scotland, and another from the same place in favour of Mr. Buckingham's claims. Mr. WAKL EY presented a petition front 4,000 inhabitants of Northampton, praying for a repeal of the Poor Laws Amendment Act ; one from Chichester, praying .for the abolition of corporpal punishment in the army • one from Robert Gaythorne Bute, who had been fined and imprisoned in the year 1814, in conjunction with Lord Cochrane ; one from Stanton, Sussex, praying for a repeal of Sturges Bourne's Vestry Act ; one from Mr. Goldspinke and others, of Marylebone, praying that the Duke of Cumberland should be impeached, or that the Dorchester labourers should be immediately liberated ; one from Finsbury, praying that the evidence might be recorded in cases of summary conviction before magistrates; one from 1,500 inhabitants of Brighton praying for the repeal of the Septen nial Act ; and one from Mr. John Baxter of Featherstone Buildings, Holborn, praying that notice should be given be fore the service of ejectmcnts, and that a new mode should be adopted in taking the verdicts of Juries. PENSION LIST. _ _ Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from Chi chester and one from Hereford, praying for an inquiry into the Pension List. He would take that opportunity of giving no tice that he would bring forward his motion on the subject on the 19th of April, when he should move a call of the House. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Nottingham in favor of Mr. Buckingham's claims ; one from Colchester, praying for the extension of the right of voting for Members of Parlia. ment to all who voted for the town council ; and one from Southwark, praying for the total abolition f the tax upon Newspapers. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from the parish clerks of Exeter (we understood), praying that the registration of marriages might not pass until they were compensated. The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition from Edin burgh praying for a reduction of the duty upon paper ; one for the repeal of the duty on soap ; one from the Solicitors of Leith against the Attornies Bill ; and one praying that the same measure of Municipal Relief might be granted to Ireland as had been granted to England. Mr. CALLAGHAN pre sented a p etition from th e parish of Ballyohagan, praying for the abolition of tithes. Mr. FOX MAUL E pre sented a p etition from th e hand loom weavers of Perth, pray in g for the institution of Boards of Trade ; and one from Blac kford, com p lainin g o f the man ner in which the Statute Labou r was levied. Mr. HUTT presented petitio ns from Hull, p ra ying for the total repeal of the tax on Newspapers, and the duty on Cape Wine. Mr. BROCKLE HUR ST presented a petition from th e merchants and tradesmen, and others of the town of Maccles field, praying for the repeal of the duties on Newspapers ; also a petition from the same place in favour of Mr. Buck ing presented a petition from the Dock Comp any o f HUTT Mr.ha m's u C T la T im s. Hull, in favour of the Hull and Selby Railway Bill. On the motion of Mr. TURNBULL, the Marlborough and Salisbury Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY BILL. On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Bill was read a t hi r d The Birmingham and Derby Railway time and passed. Lord CASTLEREAGH brought up the Report of the Committee on the Ulster Railway Bill. Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition against the Durham Grand Junction Bill. Mr. 0. GORE brought up the Report of the Committee on the London Grand Junction Railway Bill. ARBROATH AND FORFAR RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS this Bill was read a third time and passed. Sir R. FE RGUSSON presented apetition from the Mayor and other inhabitants of Nottingham, against the Nottingham Railway Bill. NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY. Mr. PARKER moved that a petition, presented last night, against certain parts-of the North Midland Railway Bill should he referred to the Committee. TEIGNMOUTH AND DAWLISH ROAD. Sir JOHN Y. BULLER moved the second reading of the Teignmouth and Dawlish Road Bill. ROTHERHAM AND SHEFFIELD RAILWAY. Mr. BETHEL brought up the Report of the Rotherham and Sheffield Railway bill. - GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL presented a Bill to alter and amend certain clauses in the act incorporating the Great Western Railway Company, and to enable them to make cer tain alterations in their line of road ; also a petition against the South Western Railway Bill. EDINBURGH, LEITH, AND NEWHAVEN RAILWAY. The LORD ADVOCATE brought up the Report of the Committee on this bill. DUBLIN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY. Mr. D. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from Cork against this Bill. TRALEE CANAL AND HARBOUR BILL. On the motion of Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, this Bill was read a third time. HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY. Mr. BETHEL moved the third reading of this Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP rose, according to the notice he had given, to oppose the third reading of this Bill. He had no interest whatever in this railroad—he was no party concerned — and he came forward to oppose this Bill solely on public grounds. The first ground for his opposing this Bill was that there was already a competent navigation, of which no com plaint had been made with regard to the conveyance of goods, with which nevertheless this Bill would most unjustly interfere. All that had been required was, that his property should be protected—that there should be that consideration shown to which he was entitled. It was said that the Dock Company were favourable to this railway, that they had taken shares to the amount of 10,000/., but they expected to be well repaid for this outlay of money. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. The Hoe. and GALLANT MEMBER was here interrupted by the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, who appeared at the table, and summoned the House to the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to several Bills. The SPEAKER, accompanied by several Members, imme diately left the House. Some time previous to the entrance of the Messenger from the House of Lords, Sir Robert Peel entered the House. As soon as he had taken his seat, the Chancellor of the Exchequer crossed the floor, and was for some time in earnest conversation with him. The Speaker having left the House, Sir Robert Peel beckoned to Mr. Thomas Duncombe, and some conversation apparently of an interesting nature took place between them. The Hon. Member for Finsbury then crossed over to where Sir James Graham was sitting, and a conversation of some length ensued. Subsequently to this Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell remained for several minutes seated under the Strangers' gallery in close conference, immediately after which Sir R. Peel quitted the House, and Lord John Russell returned to his seat. It was conjectured that these various communications between the leaders of the opposing parties had reference to the unpleasant altercation which took place in the House last night. On the SPEAKER'S return he announced to the House the different Bills to which his Majesty had given his Royal Assent, for which see our Lords' Report. Colonel SIBTHORP then resumed, and concluded by moving that the Hull and Selby Railway Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. A. TREVOR supported the motion. He thought that when an inquiry was contemplated against private pro perty, it was the duty of that House to interpose its its protection. The complaining party only required that the line of railway should be put a little further off, which would not make a difference of more than a minute and a half, and this reasonable request was refused. Whatever might be the fate of the present motion, he would stand by 11.3 Gallant Friend ; he bad often done so before, and he con ceived it a high honour to be found in the same ranks with him. Mr. HUTT strongly supported the third reading of the Bill. There was no projected line of railroad of similar ex tent which offered equal facilities. There were no hills and no inclined plane which required extra assistance. Another reason for supporting this railroad was, that whilst railroads generally were effected at a cost of from 18,0001. to 20,0001. a mile, this might be effected at a cost of 10,000/. a mile. Colonel THOMPSON said that it appeared to him that this was really a question, whether there should be railroads in the country or not, or whether it should be in the power of any individual proprietor to stop a party, in spite of all precautions? If the applicant felt that his interests were in jured, the law was open to him. This case had been before the, Committee, and they had given their opinion that there was nothing extra in it. Mr. BETHE LL was not surprised that the Gallant Co lonel should have expressed his disapprobation of this Bill, he having so often thundered out his disapprobation of Bills for railroads ; but he was surprised that the Hon. Mem ber for Durham should have opposed it, unless he wished to nionopolize all railroads for the county of Durham. After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP and Mr. A. Tem/ore amid loud cries of " Spoke" and " Question," Mr. POULETT THOMPSON said, according to the order of the House, a day had been set apart before public business was proceeded with, for bringing up the reports of Committees on Railway Bills, and then every gentleman who took an interest in the subject was prepared to discus its merits. He thought it would be convenient if Hon. Mem bers would at that stage give the Bill opposition if they thought fit to do so, instead of reserving it for the third reading. Strangers were ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— . For the second reading Against it Majority for the second reading 19 On our return to the Gallery we found Mr. NIVSON on his legs, presenting a petition from several shareholders and inhabitants of Hull in favour of a motion of which he had given notice, for the re-introduction of a clause into the Ilull and Selby Railway Bill, for the purpose of prevent ing travelling on the Hull and Selby Railway on Sundays. He would call upon all Hon. Members opposed to Sabbath day trading, as interfering with the relaxations of the poor, to support his proposition. A petition had been only a short time since presented from the labourers working a canal to extend to them that protection, and he (Mr. Lawson) now asked the same protection for the labourers employed on Railroads. He now moved that this clause be brought up. Mr. WARBURTON did not understand that the Hon. Member had brought forward objections to locomotion on Sun days generally. If it was to he carried on at all, some spe cies of human labour would be required, and he would ask what species of locomotion was attended with so small an amount of labour to animals or men as that of steam. It was of all modes that could be devised that which entailed the least sacrifice of men or animals, and that locomotion was more especially beneficial to the middle and lower classes. It saved them a vast deal of pedestrian exertion, without which they could scarcely get beyond the smoke of their own towns —( Hear)—and obtain that relaxation and fresh air they so much required. On these simple grounds lie should resist the bringing up of the clause. Mr. HUME also opposed the clause. The fact of the petition being signed by a great portion of the proprietors, would induce him to do so, as it was well known that the majority of the shareholders could make any regulations they thought proper without the interference of the legislature. Mr. ROBINSON said the practice of travelling on Sun days had become so general, that he must protest against it, a great public question being discussed on the bringing up of a clause in a private Bill. He would oppose the motion. Mr. BETHEL would also oppose the motion. He thought the clause would prove a great curse to the poorer classes. Sir H. INGLIS said when the question was brought for ward, they were told that they had allowed it in many Bills, and ought to do it again. That was unfair ; they must have a beginning somewhere. He would vote for the clause. Mr. O'CONNELL said this was a peddling way of dealing with the question, which was of much importance to the pub lic. The Right Hon. Baronet had forgot that the establish ment of these Railways, and the opening of them on Sundays, would afford to a man the means of going s o a greater number of churches. —(Laughter.) Mr. A. TREVOR would vote for the clause, and wished to see it inserted in every Railway Bill. Mr. POTTER said great advantage had arisen from the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway on Sun days.—(Hear, hear.) If the country was to be intersected with Railways, they would put a stop to all other kind of travelling, and if they were shut up the people would be obliged to stay at home on the only day they possibly could see the country. Colonel SIBTHORP would not support the clause. The Proprietors did not want to travel on the Railway on ASun days, as they had their ho rses and carriages.--( Hear.) way with such liberality—it was only cant. Colonel THOMPSON stood in a singular position with re gard to this Bill. He did not know that there was any clause in it which compelled his worth y friends, the Methodists, to travel on Sundays against their consent ; therefore, he could not support the clause ; when he saw any such attempt made he would strenuously oppose it.—( Great laughter.) He sup_ posed that if any party were to come to them and ask them to shut their mouths in the dog-days, in order to keep the flies out, they would be very apt to tell them to shut their mouths themselves. That applied to the case now before the House. The petitioners were proprietors, and might shut it up if they pleased. He would vote against the clause. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, and the House divided, when there appeared — For the clause.. ........... Against it ................... Majority against the clause ADJOURNMENT OF THE_HOUSE. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL it was agreed that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday the 11th of April. Mr. HARVEY moved that the House should be called over on Tuesday the 19th of April.—Agreed to. LORD BRLTDENELL. Sir W. MOLE SWORTH seeing the Noble Lord the Se cretary at War in his place, wished to ask him a question as to the projected appointment of Lord Brudenell to the Lieutenant-Colonelcyof the 11th Dragoons. He was induced to put this question in consequence of having read an order issued from the Horse Guards for the removal of that Noble Lord from the 15th Hussars, the regiment of which he had been in command. Now what he ( Sir W. Molesworth) wished to know from the Noble Lord the Secretary at War was, if such an order as he had mentioned appeared on the books at the War Office, and whether, notwithstanding such an order, Lord Brudenell had been appointed to the Lieu tenant-Colonelcy of the 11th Regiment of Light Dragoons, with the sanction and approbation of the Noble Lord the Se- cretary at War ? Lord HOW ICK was understood to say, in reply, that an order did appear in the books at the War Office, by which the Noble Lord alluded to by the Hon. Baronet was moved from active service, and placed on half-pay ; but this, he had rea son to understand, was meant only as a temporary punish ment, and not permanently to exclude the Noble Lord from being again called into active service. Having stated this fact, he ( Lord Howick) should now proceed to answer the question which the Hon. Baronet had put to him, as to whether it was true, as he had heard, that the Noble Lord had been appointed to the Lieutenant- Colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons with his (Lord Howick's) sanction and ap probation. It was quite clear, from the fact of his asking such a question, that the Hon. Baronet had not a correct knowledge of the practice in military affairs, especially as re garded the duty of the Secretary at War. He ought to have been aware that to the Secretary at War is simply confided the duty of watching over the financial arrangements of the army, and that he had no concern in, or right to, interfere with the question of either promotions or appointments. Still he was willing to admit that he had been aware that such an appointment was intended to be made. Lord Hill had, in fact, communicated to him his intention on the subject. The rule of the War Office in fact was, that no officer should be placed on half-pay whose character and conduct were not such as to justify the Commander in-Chief in calling on him at any time to return to ac tive service.—( Hear, hear.) That rule had been established long prior to 1834, the period when Lord Brudenell was re moved from his regiment, and with such a rule before him he thought it must be clear to anybody that in placing the Noble Lord on half-pay it was by no means intended that lie should never again be employed on active service. At all events, he (Lord Howick) could have no right whatever to object to the appointment, and with regard to whether it was a proper and fitting selection he, as Secretary at War, could have ac cess to no documents which would enable him to form an opinion on the subject. Mr. HUME observed that as the Commons of England were the parties who provided the means for keeping up the military establishment they ought to know whether the Mem bers of the Cabinet were or not answerable for the conduct of the individual who was placed by them at the head of the army. Now he was desirous of hearing the sentiments of the Noble Lord, the leader of the Government in that House, on the subject, and therefore, as he considered the Secretary at War little better than the clerk of the Commander-in-Chief, he wished to know from the Noble Lord who was to be consi dered as responsible for what took place in the army, whether his Majesty's Ministers or the Commander-in-Chief ? Lord J. RUSSELL was very much disposed to agree with what his Right Hon. Friend had stated relative to the powers of the Secretary at War, and his being placed under the Commander-in-Chief ; but so far as respected appointments and promotions in the army the discretion was placed, and in his opinion by no means improperly, in the Commander-in- Chief. The Commander-in-Chief was always a person of high station in the army, and being, therefore, presumed to be well acquainted with the merits and services of the diffe rent officers, if he did his duty to the Crown, he would be re sponsible for the recommendations which he gave with respect to appointments and promotions—the Government, or rather the First Lord of the Treasury, being responsible for ad vising the Crown to adopt these recommendations.—(Hear, hear.) If, however, the Members of the Cabinet and the First Lord of the Treasury should on the contrary be of opi nion that the discretion placed in the hands of the Com mander-in-Chief was wrongly or improperly exercised—if on the whole it should be thought that this discretion was not exercised for the benefit of the array and the advantage of the country—then he (Lord J. Russell) was free to admit that on the Government, and on them alone, would devolve the re sponsibility of taking steps for the removal of the Corn mandet-in- Chief from his office.—( Hear, hear.) There could, however, be no doubt that Lord Hill was answerable for the particular appointments which his knowledge of the respective merits of the officers enabled him to make • but then as to the general question, that of placing in the hands of Lord Hill the discretion which he possessed, all he (Lord J. Russell) could say was that he was ready to take his share of the responsibility which its exercise might occasion ; for if he did not believe Lord Hill fully capable of judging soundly, cautiously, and impartially, upon every circumstance con nected with the army, he would be among the first to advise that his Noble Friend the Commander-in-Chief was no longer worthy of the confidence reposed in him.—( Hear.) Mr. HUME wished to know if they were to understand— ( Cries of " Spoke, spoke")—that the Commander-in-Chief was the party who was answerable for all promotions, and that his Majesty's Ministers were responsible for his acts, by in short advising his Majesty to confirm them. If so, he should like to know from the Noble Lord whether the appointment of Lord Brudenell had obtained his sanction and approval ? Lord J. RUSSELL would repeat what he had said, viz., that the Commander-in- Chief was responsible for his own par ticular acts, in recommending promotions to be made by the Crown, and that Ministers were responsible for advising his Majesty to give effect to those recommendations. Now, with respect to the appointment of Lord Brudenell to the Lieut.- Coloncicy of the 11th Light Dragoons, or to any similar act of the Commander-in-Chief, it was quite clear that those who held civil situations under the Crown had nothing whatever to say, because they were incompetent to judge what would or what would not be advantageous to the military service of the country. He (Lord J. Russell) like his Noble Friend, had been informed by Lord Ilill of the appointment he con templated making, and like his Noble Friend, he had ab stained from offering any opinion as to whether Lord Brude nell was or was not a fit person to hold the rank of Lieutenant- Colonel, or to command a regiment. When spoken to on the subject, he said he thought it a matter entirely within the dis cretion of the Commander-in -Chief, and both from the state ments made to him by Lord Hill, and his Right Hon. Friend, and the rule which had been established with respect to officers retiring on half-pay, he did consider Lord Brudenell as a per son intended to be employed again on active service, and w h ose military knowledge would be beneficial to the army.—( Hear, hear.) This was precisely the opinion which Lord Hill ex pressed to his (Lord. J. Russell's) Right lion. Friend in 1834 ; and, as the removal of Lord Brudenell from active service was merely designed as a temporary punishment for the conduct attributed to him, he (Lord J. Russell) felt that he would not be acting fairly if he had not left the Commander-in-Chief to follow the dictates of his own unbiassed judgment on the sub ject.—( Hear, hear.) In conclusion he had only to repeat that, although Lord Hill was responsible for the act of appointing Lord Brudenell, yet the Government were so far responsible a for Lord Hill's conduct as to consider him a fit person to hold the office which he filled.—(Cheers.) Sir H. HARDINGE agreed that the controul of the Go vernment over the Commander-in-Chief was a general control, and could not therefore apply to every individual case. He fully admitted, with the Noble Lord, that if the Commander in-Chief were to conduct the affairs of the army in opposition to the wishes of the Government he should be removed, as it was quite manifest that the Government had a distinct right to dictate as to the general management of the army.—( Hear. ) The House had heard from the Noble Lord that Lord Hill was a man who fully merited the confidence which the Government reposed in him, and under such circumstances would it be pro per for them to interfere with the act of Lard Hill in this in stance, an act which they should recollect had been so far ap proved of by the Government as that they were responsible for it inasmuch as, knowing of it, they had not interfered to prevent it ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Cornwall stated that Lord Brudenell had been removed from the 15th Hussars by an order from the Horse Guards, but he did not know, per , haps, that the Noble Lord had petitioned the King to be tried by a General Court-Martial. The SPEAKER intimated to the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer that as none of the circumstances had been gone into, he should abstain from further notice of them. Sir H. HARDINGE observed that it was not his inten tion to go further into the details than to say that on his removal from his regiment his Noble Friend actually sent a petition to the King, praying to be tried by a court-mar tial, and that his Majesty refused to grant his Noble Friend's prayer. Mr. HUME must protest against the course which the Right Hon. Gentleman was pursuing, at all events until such time as the House had been put into possession of those details.—(" Hear," and cries of " Order.") Sir H. HARDINGE said it was quite clear that, alth ugh his Noble Friend had been removed from his regimenti , and placed upon half-pay, he had a right to expect that he would ultimately be reinstated, and the statement of the Noble Lord the Secretary at War proved that Lord Hill, though deeming punishment necessary, never entertained any other opinion than that Lord Brudenell at some future period should be re called to the service. The opinion of the court-martial, there fore, which led to the removal of his Noble Friend might well be questioned, and on that subject he ( Sir Henry Hardinge) had been at some pains to procure correct information, which enabled him to state that it never had been the object of any party that the punishment should be permanent. He must say that no appointment which he had ever heard of had given him greater satisfaction than that of Lord Brudenell. Major CURTEIS must deprecate the practice of bring ing the proceedings of Courts-Martial in such way before the House. Sir H. HARDINGE denied that be had impugned or in tended in any way to reflect upon the decision of the Court- Martial, nor did he think the Hon. and Gallant Officer had any right to attribute conduct of that sort to him. Major CURTEIS and Sir H. HARDINGE mutually ex plained. Lord G. LENNOX must say that nothing had ever given him greater satisfaction than seeing the name of Lord Brude nell restored to its proper place in the service.—( Hear. ) Sir W. MOLE SWORTH would say no more on the sub ject then. After the Easter recess, however, he begged to say that he should move an address to his Majesty on the subs ject, and in the course of that evening it was his intention to move for the production of the papers to which the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Launceston referred. After a few words from Sir H. HARDINGE and Sir W. MOLES WORTH, Lord HOWICK could not consent to the production of any papers in reference to this subject, without first corn mnnieating• with Lord. Hill : and he, therefore. hoped the Hon. Baronet would defer his, motion till some day after the recess. question to a Member o f th e Mr. ROEBUCK put a Government, but neither question nor answer were hear in the Gallery. CRACOW. creAtiarr.yPfOri‘FLorSeTigEn N A V ff A a ß irs T ) , seeing the NwoibshleedLtoordkn(othwefrSoesne—: the Noble Lord whether he had caused any communications t be made to tbe authorities of Cracow, and if he had received e any an s w er thereto ? His next questinn was, whether th_ Noble L o rd had received any official information on the sub ject of the Polish emigrants, who, instead of being sent to neutral territories, had been delivered up to the Russian autho rities, and marched off into Poland, for the purpose of being forwarded, no doubt, to Siberia ? The third question was one. of vital commercial interest. He un derstood that Russia ha closed the month of the Danube by quarantine regulations of , which must have a sensibly injurious effe ct on the commerce r this country; and ‘vhat he wished to ask of the Noble 1.0,. was, if his Majesty's Government had taken any steps to p. e e vent such a violation or" the Treaties of Vienna and Adrianopl which guaranteed the freedom of all open navigable r ivers? Lord pA LME STON said , with regard to the first ques- Ca -• tion, that he had received communic ations from the Ambassa dors to whom he had written respecting. the affairs of atere cow, but that he bad not held any communication whver with the authorities of that city. Whe n he first learned th intention of the three great Powers of the north with respe°,, to the Polish refugees, it was the in tention of hjs MaiestY Government to direct the British Consul at Warsinv to PO; ceed to Cracow. Before, however , th at ste p could De allies they learnt that Cracow was actually occu p ied by tlO , se troops, and it thence did appear to t h e m that such a ce'urn... would be as useless as it would be inexp edient. As th e l tish Consul could not have appeared at Cracow i n an ai,' c' a capacity, it was feared that his presence there would iin tacit acknowledgement of the proceeding s which d tam lace a place, and therefore it was thought advis able not to p British officer in so unbecoming a situation. With regard to the question relative to the sending some of the refuVes Poland, instead of forwarding them , according to the termsthe proclamation, to France and othe r neutral territories' i he could say was that he believed they were sent into Pole iv by their own consent. The British Ambassador at St. Peters: burgh had spoken to a member of the Russian Government uril the subject, and his answer was that he did not know of an I ; such arrangement, neither did he be lieve that the objectvia to punish those refugees, or send them into banishment; fe n • if they had been sent into Poland, it must have been because' they preferred returnin g to their own country rather than being sent elsewhere. On the subject of the third question,, all he could state was, that he had received no additional formation respecting the quarantine which had been it-nP °s .t .e i upon them by the Russian Gov ernment, with a view 113,. the preservation of health in that country, at the mouth o Danube. By the treaty of Adrianople, no doubt, the freed o 1: of all navigable rivers was guarant eed, and although Rst' had a right to establish a bona fide quarantine for the prese s., vation of health, that Government was no t, under any pretec tlse justified in adopting such a course, with a view to embarrass commerce of this or any other country. This Governmen however, received no official information on the subject. ce Mr. P. M. STEWART said that under t hese circumstan' he should feel it his duty, on Friday the 15 t h of A p ril, to ca'a: the attention of the House to the conduct wh ich Russia ha pursued towards the Polish refugees at Cracow. PORTUGAL—FRANKFORT. Mr. ROBINSON would take that opportunity of Put til l. two questions to the Noble Lord. The first wa s relative e. what state the negotiations with the Queen of Portugal wfrbe• in, on the subject of the commercial intercourse between two bbeatdw e c e e o o n u n ns this hn r i it e se s d : o ut a on n t d rayn t na h un e ld n t th e he x e t So l t aatt commercial e Nhhe or V cfi aeirtarnreka treaty yo he rtw, o ie rt e n x ill ist e et ,} , in Orde r enable that State to join in the commercial confederation the; cently established in Germany? By the treaty to whi ch t bos referred, the State of Frankfort could not be a party t° league without the assent of this country. &la Lord PALMERSTON, with rsspect to the first que ut to him by the Hon. Gentleman, was not enabl ed to Otis him the information which he desired. The negociatio • pending, and he hoped that it would be attended with a factory result : but, at the same time, the House ril°st aware that the Portuguese Government on the subject Of merce entertained views not very favourable to the conclus,i, of a treaty upon terms of reciprocal advantage to both be ds tries. A measure had lately been submitted to the C hat°, or in Portugal of a nature quite inconsistent with any liberPothe advantageous, or reciprocal, footing of commerce betweei.llo,l.. two countries. The present Government of Portugal) e a. ever he hoped, was too enlightened to sanction such a r sure; but in the present circumstances it was necessaue;T po .. ° the Government of this country to shape its course by t ier lie y of the Portuguese Government. With regard to the° ntr9 questions, it was true that about four years ago this coti-00. concluded a convention with the city of Frankfort, and that of the articles of that convention provided that Frankfort s "p r as.• not make any alteration in its tariff. The progress of the b o cl sian league had, however, been such that representations of been made that it was really indispensable for the wel l : 3 ° oe of the city of Frankfort, and that it was really of impel' ;0 0 to British interests, that Frankfort should be obliged tc_Lo. the Prussian union. In consequence of subsequent repteg tations another convention had lately been entered, releaPtio the city of Frankfort from the obligation of not joining...ea, Prussian union. That convention, as soon as it was ratilloa would of course be laid upon the table of the House, an d t t he the h o pp o H r t o u n n . t AI m yf b judging a ri t a b s e t o House c u r course generally pursued by would his M a ve • 5- ale ty's Government. Lord SANDON inquire C d H of lN tl l ie Noble Lord oPPe site h ribe : e tl a ie n r e i , t o w c a ca s s t i l o ie ne i d nt b ei y lt t i h on e dofeatthheofGtoovredrnNmziter ? fill up te . doubtedly of • Lord PALMERSTON said that this question was one uti; of the country, and so important that he could assure 0 Noble Lord that the importance of the matter was one oft_tr principal reasons why the Government paused before sent took any steps on the subject ; but by the instructions e . e to out every vacancy amongst the superintendents was at no t be filled up; of course subject to the subsequent approbah°Sir the Government. In pursuance of these instructiors, George Robinson was now senior superintendent; Cap tain Elliot the second, and Mr. Johnson the third. loa N n ir h . ad A la T te ß l SPAIN. y E b V ee o n ß ne a g s o k c e i d ate th d es on what warranty ? Lord PALMERSTON in answering this' question, Shilounia, be almost inclined to ask a counter-question of soul c , be en Member on the other side of the House. No lo on a negotiated by the Queen of Spain ; and the question 11 , e 1 , - Doo ask was, whether any loan had been negotiate with Carlos—(Laughter)—and on what warranty? Retu rn' Mr. HUME moved that the Slavery Abolition with am e the Nobi,ulee enL°Orfd Swphaeitub,earnall dated the 28th of March, be printed. ENGLISH TITHE BILL. t Sir R. INGLIS asked what course the Govertinle,l,', tended to pursue with respect to the English Tith nil' 5 ie After an observation from Mr. BARING, w hip *Ca audible, alter The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that , as solve fool tions would be necessary, the Bill would go th rou g h a reading, and be committed on the 22d of April. PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL . f Mr. P. THOMPSON moved the second reading Bill. Mr. HUME should object to the second reading'. ,`"ratio4 mission was now sittin ainted to take into consiect 0 0 thecHoo c nn Captain. rp Member re-valuing ejaumn bdp eEar of clNt, loHl would dl informationparochialaimt.untilou would d washoaats t s o e rf r s e s ep mro necessary,rae tun any opposition was s t h r ahr e o l h oi ° o l.l e a t 0 theh principle of the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time. PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. On the Order of the Day for readin this Bill, this day Mr. TREVOR moved that it be re g ad a third tiorle six months. The The motion was negatived without a division• ug h was read a third time and passed. th r° The Roman Catholic Marriages Bill then wont Committee. COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLD): ill i t AN The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to brolborcls, Bill to make certain alterations in the dut ies of % cep of Ordinary, and in the establishment of clerk s and °,rierids° the Court of Session and Court of Commission for rts• Scotland, and to receive the fees payable in these CoAOS. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.—NEW SOUTH NiCr i . ersa ig Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number 01 Y., Nei condemned to death, and the number of executions, r ast ten South Wales and Van Diemen's Land in ea ch of the os v ier° years, and stating the crimes for which th ose p erSO an a the executed.—Ordered. The other Orders of the Day were then House day, the 11thof beer; agreed,toPtiii goo" evidence s il ,l;jeot te v ; giv l e N e re to lea ti r :i n e sometilat Agricultural the connexion between the late rise in the C et o i m rio ni u it s tee evi prices 4 : ) _,`" t _Sto c* ,_ 00 the ,JO ~ modities, and the operations of several of the Joia_ a e r ise Banks lately formed. When one commodity experieoceethe eir in price or another a fall, we are entitled to attribudtaaeoed cumstance to the proportion between the stpPiLYasencoeuted.at, but when all commodities rise this can only, o they a re P' 0 1 , f Eno be by an excessive supply of the medium 11' which la borne in mind that Banks consisting of sured. We are aware that the issues of the B an ° 1 is -1 0 in the long run determine all other issues ; but 2. 0 10 10 . to - b , e b ril ai may carry . on operations for a long time at a 1 ° - t hen . t selves, without any other injur to the pt.lbliC web 0.15,5 caused ultimately by the mischief of overtrading: w e nee ce d sooner or later be felt. We are unwilling to eit te me ti e) , 4 l o ‘ sary alarm in the country ; but we are at the ' - ite peo';'. opinion that the sooner attention be directed to anY 0 0 0 e danger, the less extensive will • hief it 08) ;-s e uvoi te be the liaise 'so We understand numerous 05....- t that some influential members of the `-',.. 0r el rl were anything but satisfied with this evidence of a g' oc of prices. —Morning Chronicle. 1 ann °ll" ter Letters received yesterday from Nall' e A s Co.' b et , rs the failure of the banking -house of Falconer otr ish tra irel s ' e ip known for the drafts upon it, of which Eng betos eive • 10 0 coa ti q D ee have been so much in the practice of availing to visiting the south of Italy, than for any e l i i cooY enie the r with the mercantile interest of London. the there e re ° oe lt to travellers will be of course but trifling, as ake up 0 15 banking-houses in Naples who will be ready tot , ev wein a . v . bills for honour of the London houses by littlewhom;euersl.:oo, kieser ip , Aon rile-1. In ~v ory vi ,, , of it, it is an event e portance as could well attach to a failure 0 ... i e , It is said the engagements of Messrs. Falconco f a f s tbat Dow would be covered by a sum of 5,0001. E. ~~l